Am Fam Physician. 1998 Oct 15;58(6):1298-1303.
to the editor: I am writing in response to the article “Pitfalls in the Radiologic Evaluation of Extremity Trauma: Part I. The Upper Extremity,” written by Drs. Shearman and El-Khoury.1
The authors discussed the diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint dislocations and stated, “Stress views taken with weights suspended from each wrist will provide the diagnosis.”1 They offered no reference for their statement. The best evidence and current treatment preference for type III (complete) acromioclavicular joint dislocations support the abandonment of stress view radiographs.
While the comparison of weighted (stress) and unweighted (plain) radiographs is commonly mentioned in textbooks and articles, the results of the first and only prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study comparing plain radiographs with stress views indicate that only a plain radiograph comparing injured and uninjured acromioclavicular joints is needed to grade a dislocation.2 Stress views may mask the diagnosis of a type III injury.2 Support for the use of stress views is lacking.
The importance of differentiating between a type I dislocation or a type II (partial) dislocation and a type III dislocation has changed because the preferred treatment of type III injuries is now conservative treatment rather than surgery. In 1974, 92 percent of the chairs of orthopedic residency programs recommended surgery for the treatment of type III dislocations.3 Results of two long-term, prospective, randomized, comparative studies4,5 in the late 1980s showed that conservative treatment is as good as or better than surgery. In 1992, 72 percent of the chairs of orthopedic residency programs preferred conservative treatment of type III joint dislocations over surgery.6 Sixty-nine percent of Major League Baseball team orthopedists prefer conservative treatment, even for a type III dislocation of the throwing shoulder in their starting pitchers.7 If types I, II and III joint dislocations receive the same conservative treatment, radiographs for grading are unnecessary. Plain radiographs may be helpful, however, in ruling out other injuries that may need a different treatment approach.
Interestingly, an informal, nonscientific, unpublished survey among physicians at one hospital revealed that most orthopedists did not order any type of radiograph for the diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint dislocations and none ordered stress views. All of the radiologists surveyed recommended the comparison of plain radiographs and stress views. Family physicians were divided on the question, with the majority choosing to obtain stress views. Medical practice should not be changed on the basis of anecdotes or expert opinion. However, the fact that the majority of orthopedists have stopped ordering stress views should at least compel consideration of the existing evidence.
In summary, the preferred management of type III acromioclavicular joint dislocations has changed from surgery to conservative treatment. If the grading of an acromioclavicular joint dislocation is desired, plain radiographs that compare the injured and uninjured joint are adequate. Based on the best medical evidence, as well as the cost, the time involved and the exposure to radiation that patients receive, stress view radiographs should no longer be the standard method of evaluation of acromioclavicular joint dislocations.
REFERENCESshow all references
1. Shearman CM, El-Khoury GY. Pitfalls in the radiologic evaluation of extremity trauma: part I. The upper extremity. Am Fam Physician. 1998;57:995–1002....
2. Bossart PJ, Joyce SM, Manaster BJ, Packer SM. Lack of efficacy of 'weighted' radiographs in diagnosing acute acromioclavicular separation. Ann Emerg Med. 1988;17:20–4.
3. Powers JA, Bach PJ. Acromioclavicular separations. Closed or open treatment? Clin Orthop. 1974;0:213–23.
4. Larsen E, Bjerg-Nielsen A, Christensen P. Conservative or surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation. A prospective, controlled, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:552–5.
5. Bannister GC, Wallace WA, Stableforth PG, Hutson MA. The management of acute acromioclavicular dislocation. A randomised prospective controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71:848–50.
6. Cox JS. Current method of treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Orthopedics. 1992;15:1041–4.
7. McFarland EG, Blivin SJ, Doehring CB, Curl LA, Silberstein C. Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations in professional throwing athletes: results of a survey. Am J Orthop. 1997;26:771–4.
editor's note: This letter was sent to the authors of “Pitfalls in the Radiologic Evaluation of Extremity Trauma: Part I. The Upper Extremity,” who declined to reply.
Send letters to firstname.lastname@example.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.
This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.
Copyright © 1998 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact email@example.com for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions